Ian Cooper

>since a fireball is traditionally an area effect Are they a mob? If you are treating them in game as a mob, i.e. despite being many of them, they just have one action, then the fireball targets all of them, but their resistance drops to that of an individual, instead of being pushed up for being a mob. So for example if you have a mob of Orcs, at a resistance of 20, but the player fireballs them, i might drop the resistance to 14 to represent the area effect nature of the weapon. > they are all individuals This is slightly tougher because you would need individual contests against all of them, and if you didn't knock them out, they would enter the contest with other members of the group uninjured. That doesn't really emulate what you are after, even if you just roll once and apply the results to everyone. In that case I would probably treat is as an 'unrelated action' use the simple contest vs the mob of orcs to determine their fate. In QuestWorlds I might treat a defeat for the orcs as half of them are dead, the other half are at -6 due to wounds, I might give the orcs a -3 if they got a victory to represent flash burns anyway. One of the changes in QuestWorlds is to let you give penalties on a victory or bonuses on a defeat

I am going to try and address the issue of 'initiative' and parallel and sequential actions in the Core Rules. A summary would be: Either the story makes it clear who has the initiative or the PCs do by default. Whoever has the initiative gets to say what they do in an exchange first. The other side respond (however they wish to that). You roll for the exchange and the GM (as always) narrates the outcome. If you win the exchange, you most likely have initiative for the next exchange, presuming that makes sense in the fiction. In this way control shifts back and forth. There are exceptions here. Extended as opposed to Scored Contests use AP bids to figure out initiative in a group contest, so use that in preference there.

We don't know if we'll do it or not. It all depends on reception to QuestWorlds

Go here to raise issues: https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/issues

If its in that section, it's part of the material intended to release older rule variants under the SRD but not part of the new game

Hey @Loïc, Only just seen this. I have my third group going through the adventures at the minute, and they always surprise me with taking in the game and me in some new direction each time. Hope you are still enjoying it. Ian

I'm much more likely to post at the FB QuestWorlds group, as I only drop to this forum occasionally. I'll try to circle back for a bit to pick up responses on this thread. First draft of my part of the Core Rules will be done by end of the month. Just need to get the examples in to have the whole first draft. And then get another pair of eyes at Chaosium to edit it for me. But we are very much on track with this now. The Worlds & Quests book should be first draft by end of the year. And then we get into art and layout, but there is a good chance of a digital release in 2021-and that's about as much of a date that we will give at this point. After that come Doc Vandal, Cosmic Zap and After Thought, probably in that order. Those have first drafts already, so the pipeline could be quite steady after that. Progress. Thanks for your patience GitHub has no open issues for the SRD right now: https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/tree/master/docs

It's worth bearing in mind that we have never been able to get the HeroQuest entry on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia regards the boardgame as what everyone knows the brand applies to. That brand confusion is not a great position for us. If we change the generic name to QuestWorlds then, because outside of Glorantha our use of HeroQuest has no brand recognition, we are faced with the question of what to do with HeroQuest Glorantha. It remains likely that we will want to bring QuestWorlds players to Glorantha to grow our numbers, over bringing existing BRP Glorantha fans to QuestWorlds. They have RQG and it's going to be a low number that look over the fence to see what their neighbour is up to. So I don't think the HeroQuest branding really helps us grow our base. Better to bring them via QuestWorlds to Glorantha. And that means the brand identity works in our favour. "Oh look another QuestWorlds genre pack. Oh and it is set in the world of Glorantha that I heard about," is more likely than "HeroQuest is just another name for QuestWorlds, and not the MB boardgame, so I will pick that up."

Hi guys, Whilst I am busy with the QuestWorlds Core book, and the Augments line, I pop in here less. it's just a time issue. As Greg once said, if you are writing on the forums you are not creating. Still, if you want to track progress on QuestWorlds this may be the easiest forum right now: https://www.facebook.com/groups/205528290149281 I'll try to pop in here too, but no guarantees

It's something I would like to do, at some point. But realistically we have to increase the market share for QuestWorlds/HeroQuest. PS It's not true to say there are no books planned for HeroQuest Gorantha, at least one is very close to completion.

it's likely that we will cover Supers in the Core Book and the have Ron's treatment as a follow up book

The correct runes are giving on the header introducing the NPC

It's quite possible to define a breakout ability that not everyone who has the keyword has. For example I might take Pilot 17 Bullseye Womp Rats +1 Now not every pilot learned their skills on Tatooine, so not every Pilot keyword can get Bullseye Womp Rats. Now, if someone has that skill and is attempting to run the trench on the Death Star I would give them a lower TN, because the genre says that farmboy flying skills save the day in Star Wars.

There is nothing in RAW to do that. Mechanically, we just have consequences of defeat, which are measured as states of adversity. But if you wanted to use flaws to tag 'injuries' it's a valid rules change for you to make for your game. We probably would not recommend you using a state of adversity as well. GM's choice. Most of the time it makes sense to be either (1) An ability used in the conflict (2) Future attempts to obtain the prize. But the GM is at liberty to choose what makes sense in genre. Yes, you need to track them. Some character sheets have had a section to track these. I tend to review at the beginning of each session, as they may stimulate further adventure in this session, or have faded. I don't always impose or grant them. Only when I think the contest is likely to have consequences in the story. Sometimes the contest didn't really have story impact, so I don't want it to have numerical impact either

This is the feedback approach that we are proposing. Your thoughts on this approach are welcome. The goal here is to avoid spreading feedback over multiple possible fora, and to ensure that each item is separately threaded, so we don't lose anything or fail to respond. https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

The plural makes all the difference... but the idea, of something open that others could utilize, is one reason we liked the name

I'd not seen @David Scott's suggestion. Let me get together with him and see if that is something we want to correct.

If you are playing HQG today, this will hopefully clarify, provide some tweaks to existing rules, and some options. But it's not significantly different.

We are working on a new core book.

We wanted to clearly distinguish when we were using a word, like outcome, to refer to a game rule, or just generally. We use terms that can be confused, even in context, so we wanted to be clear as to intent. Any use of bold highlights a game term.

Yeah, it just means that you have to use the JC

Two options. If you feel comfortable with that approach, raise a GitHub issue. If, not wait a day or so and I will start an errata thread. The good news is our turn around on these will be fast, as the artifacts are generated

Should be fixed